The Everton Board Thread 2015/16 [ Not takeover related ]

[funkygibson]

Mate of mine emailed a link to WT treatise tonight so I read the big expose.

Yes he has questioned Mr Kenwright's blue credentials, but that is the least of the problems that I have with it.

Have read with growing incredulity the constant claims (without any concrete evidence) that Philip Green owns a percentage of Everton and pulls the strings. Problem is, that under Premier League rules, beneficial owners of above 10% of the club must be declared -Philip Green isn't, so either it's a conspiracy within the club, or, the most likely scenario, Philip Green has no beneficial interest in the club.

If his wife has an investment vehicle called Taveta, the shares would be held by that anyway surely?

The Vibrac/Mousehole/JG Funding/Carroch Holdings/Kirkton Investment structure loans money at a commercial rate to football clubs, not just Everton. The beneficial owner of the structure will probably never be known unless the Corporate Service Providers' offices in both the BVI and IOM are broken into and the MLR and due diligence files on the Companies are stolen. It would be my guess that ownership in the Companies would probably be vested in trust(s), preferably discretionary so no beneficiaries need be listed, and the settlor of the trust could literally be anyone in certain jurisdictions.

These loans are not disclosed as related party transactions in the accounts, so in the absence of that, the conclusion is that the loans come from companies that are in no way related to thr directors and major shareholders of EFC.

Power8 - well, quite frankly there is no excuse for getting involved with the company as a partner in my humble opinion. If I took this company or similar on, I would be looking down tje barrel of prosecution on the Proceeds of Crime Act.

I have said it before and truly believe that in certain respects Watched Toffee has done some good, but should not pass off opinion as fact.

Why don't you take your concerns up with the man/woman himself/herself?

 

[SerenityNigh]

There's some book written by/about theatre ponces which includes a reference to a young actor from Merseyside....William Kenwright, complaining that some production didn't use the YNWA dirge.

Sure, but the link is tenuous, at best. A good argument begins with a solid foundation; barbs like this can be heaped on later to see if any stick. When I read any argument that begins with silly jabs like this, it suggests that either the writer is building the argument poorly (could still be true, even if built on poor logic) or building the argument by ad hominem, looking to create a feeling of agreement where there is no actual substance.

In this regard, WT is the Naismith of investigative journalism--full of admirable effort, but lacks finish and falls down at the slightest breeze, asking for a penalty. (See how I did that there? Building the evidence first, then making the accusation?)

I appreciate WT's effort, the kid's got spunk, but the accusations are wild and not backed up with any real evidence. Accepting these sweeping accusations as gospel proof is silly.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Sure, but the link is tenuous, at best. A good argument begins with a solid foundation; barbs like this can be heaped on later to see if any stick. When I read any argument that begins with silly jabs like this, it suggests that either the writer is building the argument poorly (could still be true, even if built on poor logic) or building the argument by ad hominem, looking to create a feeling of agreement where there is no actual substance.

In this regard, WT is the Naismith of investigative journalism--full of admirable effort, but lacks finish and falls down at the slightest breeze, asking for a penalty. (See how I did that there? Building the evidence first, then making the accusation?)

I appreciate WT's effort, the kid's got spunk, but the accusations are wild and not backed up with any real evidence. Accepting these sweeping accusations as gospel proof is silly.

I'd go a step further and say with an accusation of that scale it needs to be the thesis of the argument. If you're going to insinuate or accuse Bill Kenwright of being a kopite, it deserves a thorough and reasoned argument thereof. Something along the lines of (and this is not my own opinion, but I digress):

Bill Kenwright is a Kopite.

I know that sounds like the mutterings of a jaded, embittered fan, but there is evidence that suggests this very fact, and coupled with his documented failures as chairman of Everton it becomes a compelling case.

<Present evidence therein>.

It should not be a throwaway accusation precisely because it draws attention away from the actual argument being made. This is why I'm continuously asking the anti-board faction (which I generally stand with if I'm entirely honest) to refrain from ad hominem in general. It muddies the water, when a crystal clear view should be plenty to allow people to make their decision, which in turn I believe would lead to a greater degree of pressure on the board. Kenwright's fandom is not the core problem here - he could be a Kopite, and I wouldn't care if he was leading Everton to glory. He can be the biggest blue in the world and I would (and do) want him out as he fails to plan and envision a future.

This is why @WatchedToffee will not get the traction that some of these arguments deserve - there is too much in the way of opinion and personal conviction and not enough evidence to support his bold claims...mainly because he is focusing on the worst possible truths rather than the actual undeniable truths that should be enough when laid out clearly, concisely and objectively.

VIBRAC et. al. should be questioned - but not in the sense of whether Earl is skimming off the top - in the sense of whether they're necessary or financially prudent for our club. If they are, then we refocus to other issues, if they're not then the argument makes itself.

There are plenty of problems with our board, regardless of their football loyalties or personal lives. @the esk does an admirable job staying on message - we need investment and it doesn't matter whether it's this board stumping money, getting in outside investment, or selling up. Everton need a capital injection and the board has failed to secure it. This is an undeniable fact that carries weight and gravitas. Accusing board members (or shadowy non-board member board members) of all things illicit? That just makes people ignore you as a loon regardless of the truth of your claims simply because they cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Why don't you take your concerns up with the man/woman himself/herself?

I have posted on WT myself, initially I took some interest and responded to try and assist with facts about Everton Investments Limited, Goodison Park Stadium Limited and the reason for them being set up.
I did this under my own name and should ypu wish to check this, I assume that the posts may still be on WT's timeline,.
I do not denigrate the unearthing of facts, but offering opinion and tenuous links as fact is, in my opinion, not helpful as it is too easy to disprove.

 

[magicjuan]

Sure, but the link is tenuous, at best. A good argument begins with a solid foundation; barbs like this can be heaped on later to see if any stick. When I read any argument that begins with silly jabs like this, it suggests that either the writer is building the argument poorly (could still be true, even if built on poor logic) or building the argument by ad hominem, looking to create a feeling of agreement where there is no actual substance.

In this regard, WT is the Naismith of investigative journalism--full of admirable effort, but lacks finish and falls down at the slightest breeze, asking for a penalty. (See how I did that there? Building the evidence first, then making the accusation?)

I appreciate WT's effort, the kid's got spunk, but the accusations are wild and not backed up with any real evidence. Accepting these sweeping accusations as gospel proof is silly.

You're using the word silly a lot when you don't agree with a particular view, is that a habit you've developed?

 

[AaronTheBlue]

must be a lot of truth in that watched toffees stuff, as it sort of looks like the club are trying to investigate / find out who it is

 

[RaleighBlue]

You're using the word silly a lot when you don't agree with a particular view, is that a habit you've developed?

You're suggesting that accepting opinion and circumstantial evidence (at best) as absolute fact is not silly?

I don't think he was taking a stand on whether he believes the accusations, he was (quite correctly) pointing out that opinions need more than vaguely circumstantial evidence to be well supported in an argument.

@WatchedToffee says an awful lot of things that a tenuous at best - that doesn't make them wrong perse, it just means that they're very hard to argue effectively. If his accusations are true, I hope someone can actually uncover hard evidence of these misdeeds. In the meantime, we should focus on objective fact - which, once again, is enough to judge this board very harshly indeed.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Sure, but the link is tenuous, at best. A good argument begins with a solid foundation; barbs like this can be heaped on later to see if any stick. When I read any argument that begins with silly jabs like this, it suggests that either the writer is building the argument poorly (could still be true, even if built on poor logic) or building the argument by ad hominem, looking to create a feeling of agreement where there is no actual substance.

In this regard, WT is the Naismith of investigative journalism--full of admirable effort, but lacks finish and falls down at the slightest breeze, asking for a penalty. (See how I did that there? Building the evidence first, then making the accusation?)

I appreciate WT's effort, the kid's got spunk, but the accusations are wild and not backed up with any real evidence. Accepting these sweeping accusations as gospel proof is silly.

You seem to have missed the obvious point that I was just referencing what the lad had said on twitter, not supporting the link he was making about Kenwright being a kopite. Great points about building arguments and investigative journalism though, I'm sure he will give a huge flying one about being patronised on the net.

This is why @WatchedToffee will not get the traction that some of these arguments deserve - there is too much in the way of opinion and personal conviction and not enough evidence to support his bold claims...mainly because he is focusing on the worst possible truths rather than the actual undeniable truths that should be enough when laid out clearly, concisely and objectively.

Try sifting through the arguments, apply some rational critique to them in the context of what else is known, decide what you think is possible/probable and disregard the rest ?

 

[funkygibson]

I have posted on WT myself, initially I took some interest and responded to try and assist with facts about Everton Investments Limited, Goodison Park Stadium Limited and the reason for them being set up.
I did this under my own name and should ypu wish to check this, I assume that the posts may still be on WT's timeline,.
I do not denigrate the unearthing of facts, but offering opinion and tenuous links as fact is, in my opinion, not helpful as it is too easy to disprove.

Please don't think I was being dismissive of your comments in any way. I'm no expert but like many supporters I do feel something is amiss in the running of our club. That said I'm also old enough & ugly enough to understand that there are 2sides to an argument, so genuinely, I would have been very interested in what WT would have had to say in reply to your thoughts

 

[RaleighBlue]

You seem to have missed the obvious point that I was just referencing what the lad had said on twitter, not supporting the link he was making about Kenwright being a kopite. Great points about building arguments and investigative journalism though, I'm sure he will give a huge flying one about being patronised on the net.

Do not care whether he has a clue what I write. I'm explaining why this line of argument has gained no traction in the past 10 years and why we continue to have your dreaded 'happy clappers'. The argument of the militant anti-board section of our fans is not accessible to the silent majority. You want change? Approach the problem properly.

Try sifting through the arguments, apply some rational critique to them in the context of what else is known, decide what you think is possible/probable and disregard the rest ?

I'm sure this is precisely what the average Everton fan wants to do when they get home from work and put the kids to bed.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Do not care whether he has a clue what I write. I'm explaining why this line of argument has gained no traction in the past 10 years and why we continue to have your dreaded 'happy clappers'. The argument of the militant anti-board section of our fans is not accessible to the silent majority. You want change? Approach the problem properly.

You're responding to my response to Serenity there mate

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Please don't think I was being dismissive of your comments in any way. I'm no expert but like many supporters I do feel something is amiss in the running of our club. That said I'm also old enough & ugly enough to understand that there are 2sides to an argument, so genuinely, I would have been very interested in what WT would have had to say in reply to your thoughts

Not at all. I'm old enough and ugly enough to hate using twitter, facebook and textspeak. The only reason for my response was to let you know that I had laid facts to WT. Cheets

 

[The Esk]

If every blue asked the following question, what defense could the Board offer?

To remain competitive, Everton as a business is desperately short of capital. The capital can come from three sources:

1. Existing shareholders
2. New shareholders
3. Sell the club to an owner that can provide the necessary funding for the team, stadium and commercial activities

Which is it to be?

 

[Frank Gallagher]

If every blue asked the following question, what defense could the Board offer?

To remain competitive, Everton as a business is desperately short of capital. The capital can come from three sources:

1. Existing shareholders
2. New shareholders
3. Sell the club to an owner that can provide the necessary funding for the team, stadium and commercial activities

Which is it to be?

its the ONLY question to ask. and at present there is NO answer! (which says alot)

 

[SerenityNigh]

You're using the word silly a lot when you don't agree with a particular view, is that a habit you've developed?

Yes, it's a silly habit. Would you prefer foolish? I think WT is foolish, and would do well to refrain from silly distractions.